General Rugby Discussion II

troyzer

sydthebeat wrote: »

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/pacific-islands-super-rugby-team-moves-step-closer-but-based-in-hawaii?utm_source=edm-friday-preview&utm_medium=email-news-story-link&utm_campaign=super-rugby

Interesting if slightly off the wall idea

I smell bull****.

ScrubsfanChris

troyzer wrote: »

I smell bull****.

Honolulu is over 5000km away from Suva. Some trek for a "home" game

BBDBB

A very different kind of haka

Mookie Blaylock

Pretty emotional interview by Mike Ross on the late late talking about his brothers death

Dave_The_Sheep

I had to skip through the RTE player to find the the interview in the show. Just so I'm clear, RTE thinks its compelling viewing to interview the previous host Pat Kenny as part of the show.

I mean, I realise that RTE relies on it's own people to keep doing shows but jesus. Twats.

[edit - I haven't watched his interview yet]

Dave_The_Sheep

I've been to Q&As with Ross before, but I didn't quite realise how dry his sense of humour really is. I love it.

Clegg

Joe Marler has admitted that he sought to get suspended in order to avoid playing for England. Is a correct reading of this that he tried to hurt a fellow pro in order to miss England duty?

The anxiety I would get about having to leave and go away again would start to manifest itself in giving away even more dull penalties and looking for outs, looking for a yellow card, looking for a red card, because if I could pick up a ban, that’s an easy way out without actually pulling the trigger.”

Buer

I assume he means he was doing these things subconciously. With that said, the guy is as dumb as a box of rocks.

Maybe that's harsh on rocks though. Particularly sedimentary. They have many layers.

razorblunt

I'd take all that chat with a pinch of salt, trying to get his name out there now and into punditry I reckon. The B(ant)T(s) lads would have him on in the morning I'd say.

Mookie Blaylock

Seems as though he has some mental health issues....

errlloyd

razorblunt wrote: »

I'd take all that chat with a pinch of salt, trying to get his name out there now and into punditry I reckon. The B(ant)T(s) lads would have him on in the morning I'd say.

He's young, like he's years from actual club retirement.

swiwi_

World Rugby introduced the law with immediate effect last week, after a contentious decision to suspend Israel Folau over an aerial collision with Ireland skipper Peter O’Mahony in the third June Series Test. Folau was suspended after a contest with O’Mahony where the backrower was lifted by teammate CJ Stander and then fell awkwardly. World Rugby has moved to add a new law 9.19 that explicitly states players are responsible for bringing their teammates back to ground.

Good. Always thought the Folau suspension was BS.

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

World Rugby introduced the law with immediate effect last week, after a contentious decision to suspend Israel Folau over an aerial collision with Ireland skipper Peter O’Mahony in the third June Series Test. Folau was suspended after a contest with O’Mahony where the backrower was lifted by teammate CJ Stander and then fell awkwardly. World Rugby has moved to add a new law 9.19 that explicitly states players are responsible for bringing their teammates back to ground.

Good. Always thought the Folau suspension was BS.

I'm not sure that they are saying what you think they are saying. It doesn't say anything about a subsequent dangerous challenge in the air? It's basically making in-play lifts the same as line out lifts no?

troyzer

Deleted User wrote: »

swiwi_ wrote: »

World Rugby introduced the law with immediate effect last week, after a contentious decision to suspend Israel Folau over an aerial collision with Ireland skipper Peter O’Mahony in the third June Series Test. Folau was suspended after a contest with O’Mahony where the backrower was lifted by teammate CJ Stander and then fell awkwardly. World Rugby has moved to add a new law 9.19 that explicitly states players are responsible for bringing their teammates back to ground.

Good. Always thought the Folau suspension was BS.

I'm not sure that they are saying what you think they are saying. It doesn't say anything about a subsequent dangerous challenge in the air? It's basically making in-play lifts the same as line out lifts no?

I think the implication was that at least part of his bad landing was Stander's fault. But going by the rules of the game at the time, it was entirely Folau's fault and given how bad it was = suspension.

If it happened now presumably blame would be apportioned and it would probably only be a penalty at best.

Dave_The_Sheep

I'm unsure how I feel about that.

Bazzo

errlloyd wrote: »

He's young, like he's years from actual club retirement.

Yeah he's only 28, no way he's angling for punditry this early in his career. He's a prop so he could have 6-7 years left in the tank injury permitting.

Yeah_Right

swiwi_ wrote: »

World Rugby introduced the law with immediate effect last week, after a contentious decision to suspend Israel Folau over an aerial collision with Ireland skipper Peter O’Mahony in the third June Series Test. Folau was suspended after a contest with O’Mahony where the backrower was lifted by teammate CJ Stander and then fell awkwardly. World Rugby has moved to add a new law 9.19 that explicitly states players are responsible for bringing their teammates back to ground.

Good. Always thought the Folau suspension was BS.

I thought the suspension was harsh because nothing he did warranted a red. He probably should have been yellow carded for the second challenge because he hung an arm out and definitely played POM in the air. If the ref had penalised (and maybe carded) that challenge, he doesn't do the next and there is no outcry. I think the suspension was partly due to the stink drummed up by the Irish media.

The single person lift compounded the result as POM pivoted on the axis that was Stander's grip. Maybe they should just ban lifting in open play. However if POM had jumped on his own and Folau had done the same action, POM still gets played in the air and probably lands on his back. Still a penalty and possible yellow. Ok, not POM as he couldn't jump that high maybe RK or Earls.

**disclaimer** The above is based purely on my memory. I haven't watched it since June so I could be completely off in my recollection of events

awec

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I thought the suspension was harsh because nothing he did warranted a red. He probably should have been yellow carded for the second challenge because he hung an arm out and definitely played POM in the air. If the ref had penalised (and maybe carded) that challenge, he doesn't do the next and there is no outcry. I think the suspension was partly due to the stink drummed up by the Irish media.

The single person lift compounded the result as POM pivoted on the axis that was Stander's grip. Maybe they should just ban lifting in open play. However if POM had jumped on his own and Folau had done the same action, POM still gets played in the air and probably lands on his back. Still a penalty and possible yellow. Ok, not POM as he couldn't jump that high maybe RK or Earls.

**disclaimer** The above is based purely on my memory. I haven't watched it since June so I could be completely off in my recollection of events

I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually ban single person lifts.

irishbucsfan

I thought the suspension was harsh because nothing he did warranted a red.

https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/worldrugby/document/2018/06/28/309afac7-797d-4fcc-9c92-5401ec0ee38f/180627-WR-Decision-Israel-Folau.pdf





One day, maybe it'll be possible to trust people to actually have read this stuff before forming an opinion

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/worldrugby/document/2018/06/28/309afac7-797d-4fcc-9c92-5401ec0ee38f/180627-WR-Decision-Israel-Folau.pdf





One day, maybe it'll be possible to trust people to actually have read this stuff before forming an opinion

I said suspension not hearing. Funny that you comment on people reading

I understand why they had the hearing but I don't think a suspension was deserved. I believe that the suspension was partly to placate the Irish.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I said suspension not hearing. Funny that you comment on people reading

I understand why they had the hearing but I don't think a suspension was deserved. I believe that the suspension was partly to placate the Irish.

But he should have been sent off? Surely it's a basic replacement when a player has avoided a red card in a game where they should have received two yellow cards?

It was pretty much the bare minimum they could do under the structures that are in place. It had absolutely nothing to do with placating the Irish, that's just paranoia.

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But he should have been sent off? Surely it's a basic replacement when a player has avoided a red card in a game where they should have received two yellow cards?

It was pretty much the bare minimum they could do under the structures that are in place. It had absolutely nothing to do with placating the Irish, that's just paranoia.

But if he had gotten a YC for the first foul would he have been on the field at the time of the second? Genuine question. I can't remember the times of the 3 incidents. If he gets a yellow earlier, does he even commit the one he got carded for? He didn't do it again after he got the yellow did he?

If a player gets a yellow for pulling down a maul and then later should have gotten a yellow for a deliberate knock on, should he be suspended?

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

But if he had gotten a YC for the first foul would he have been on the field at the time of the second? Genuine question. I can't remember the times of the 3 incidents. If he gets a yellow earlier, does he even commit the one he got carded for? He didn't do it again after he got the yellow did he?

None of that is in the laws so its not relevant to the hearing. But the first incident was at 8 minutes and the second was after 30 minutes.

The laws are applied equally in every minute (officially) and Folau's lawyer did not attempt to make that argument according to the report.

If a player gets a yellow for pulling down a maul and then later should have gotten a yellow for a deliberate knock on, should he be suspended?

According to the laws of the game, absolutely yes. And if they get a CCW for that deliberate knock on they will be suspended and the minimum sanction is a 2 week ban. Its not a difficult decision for any committee to reach, it's fairly black and white.

The only room for deliberation here (once they dismissed his argument that neither incident should have been a yellow card) was whether he had enough mitigating factors to get his 2 week ban reduced to 1 week. And he had more than enough.

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

None of that is in the laws so its not relevant to the hearing. But the first incident was at 8 minutes and the second was after 30 minutes.

The laws are applied equally in every minute (officially) and Folau's lawyer did not attempt to make that argument according to the report.


According to the laws of the game, absolutely yes. And if they get a CCW for that deliberate knock on they will be suspended and the minimum sanction is a 2 week ban. Its not a difficult decision for any committee to reach, it's fairly black and white.

The only room for deliberation here (once they dismissed his argument that neither incident should have been a yellow card) was whether he had enough mitigating factors to get his 2 week ban reduced to 1 week. And he had more than enough.

I don't really care what his lawyer argued, I'm giving my own opinion. I think he deserved a yellow card and it should have come earlier. I don't think the suspension was warranted.

Did he make another challenge like that after the yellow? Wasn't there a third challenge on POM?

Has there ever been a CCW for a missed deliberate knock, pulling down a maul, killing the ball or anything like that? Do you think a player should get a suspension for getting 2 YCs where neither were foul play but were professional fouls?

stephen_n

troyzer wrote: »

I think the implication was that at least part of his bad landing was Stander's fault. But going by the rules of the game at the time, it was entirely Folau's fault and given how bad it was = suspension.

If it happened now presumably blame would be apportioned and it would probably only be a penalty at best.

Which is BS since he deliberately targeted him in the air and pulled him down.

troyzer

stephen_n wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

I think the implication was that at least part of his bad landing was Stander's fault. But going by the rules of the game at the time, it was entirely Folau's fault and given how bad it was = suspension.

If it happened now presumably blame would be apportioned and it would probably only be a penalty at best.

Which is BS since he deliberately targeted him in the air and pulled him down.

He barely touched him. Stander's lift was awful. He was landing on his back anyway.

Buer

awec wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually ban single person lifts.

Lifting is a real issue that's rarely discussed/addressed. Single player lifts are impressive but also reckless and encourages single player lifting from those who can't do it safely. Just because I've seen John Hayes and Rhys Ruddock do it very handily, it doesn't mean others should.

Lifters have an obligation to bring their jumpers back to earth safely. I think it was Ultan Dillane at the weekend who fired SOB2 into the air and completely lost him, leaving SOB2 to land on the deck. It's in the laws but it's never enforced.

If World Rugby are serious about collisions in the air and risk of serious injury from it, single player lifts should be one of the first things they look at.

Mookie Blaylock

troyzer wrote: »

He barely touched him. Stander's lift was awful. He was landing on his back anyway.

Not a hope, when lifting a player your own centre of gravity shifts...you can bring someone down no issue.. but if another force is applied..then the chance of you bringing the player down safely are hugely diminished.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I don't really care what his lawyer argued, I'm giving my own opinion. I think he deserved a yellow card and it should have come earlier. I don't think the suspension was warranted.

Did he make another challenge like that after the yellow? Wasn't there a third challenge on POM?

Has there ever been a CCW for a missed deliberate knock, pulling down a maul, killing the ball or anything like that? Do you think a player should get a suspension for getting 2 YCs where neither were foul play but were professional fouls?

It doesn’t matter whether he made another challenge like that afterwards.

The laws are simple on this. If you get a yellow in the game and a CCW afterwards for a separate incident, you will get a ban.

A CCW is actually something worth “more than” a yellow card but not quite enough for a citing, so all this stuff about deliberate knock-ons isn’t actually relevant. They’re usually reserved for dangerous play. And again in the report, which is worth actually reading, they do specifically state that technical infringements would be judged differently and would have a chance of escaping a ban.

stephen_n

troyzer wrote: »

He barely touched him. Stander's lift was awful. He was landing on his back anyway.

How much force do you think it requires to destabilize a player in the air, I take it you’ve never been lifted in a line out.